Creation Ex Nihilo

heusdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>How could you verify any property of change and/or motion of homogenous energy with a neutral charge?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: An inability to detect or measure does not infer "Nothingness".

Although Tom and I disagree on some things about this discussion, I would think he would have to agree with this or else MM is based on nothing since gravitons and eyslons have not been detected or measured

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

[Mac] "Multiple Universes each bounded by the 'Nothingness' boundry ... "

If something like this actually exists in reality (and how can we know at this point?), the universe of the Meta Model contains all of them.

By definition.
Ahem, BY DEFINITION.

===

Did I mention that the definition of universe in MM is "ALL that exists"? Yes, that would include duma-fatchies like 'multiple SUB-universes'.

Even if this doesn't qualify as a 'proper' definition in your book.

Regards,
LB

[duma-fatchie, (the 'fa' is pronounced like the 'fa' in father, the 't' is almost silent) for those not familliar with American slang, is an illiterate hick word that means thing-a-ma-jig.]

Jan,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Whoop-dee-doo! This would make great stuff for some Late Night Show.... Larry K perhaps?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I love this cirular logic. Establish a definition which by it form insures the desired conclusion that a bounded universe must be unbounded.[]



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

rouse johnny,

<b>What would we have then if E=MC squared principle were used deductively to change all matter into energy and the charges were to cancel out to equal 0. This would by your own words above not be something but rather "nothing". This is the only nothing that is possible. It is not detectable, but quantitatively deducible (is that a word?).</b>/

ANS: Actually I don't think this fits a good definition of "Notingness". The Cornell paper stays that +/- energy in the observable univers calculates to be a net zero. The plus is energy/matter and the -is gravity/time.

Your E=mc^2 example would create maximum sapce with no gravity or time. Whle it might not be detectable due to the absence of time it would still not be "Nothing". It would be space without time, which while not very interesting or useful would still be "Something".



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Jan,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>So if I understand it correctly, you believe that if we reverse all causes and effects that have taken place on arbitrary forms and entities in the universe at this moment, we must reach a definite event before which all conceivable forms did not exist?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Not exactly. You seem to be suggeting that somehow we must reverse the filim and play the sequence backwards. If we did then yes it should all vanish into "Nothingness". But at a more pragmatic level just to understand that our current existance is supported on the basis of "Sometings" which collectively amount to "Nothing" which certainly supports the view of N---&gt;(+s)(-s) as an origin.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Then, by taking an inception event, how could this event have discriminated a significantly different configuration of nothingness from which the universe was born. How could this event have been managed by forms that did not exist? What changed the equilibrium of nothingness to the universe as we know it? You have to admit, these are tough questions.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: These are indeed hard questions and for whch we have no answers. But they are at least scientific questions in lieu of proposing the concept that we exist becuse we have always existed without ever having come into existance.

To me to suggest that someting has never come into existance requires that it does not exist.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Anyway, whether time had a beginning or not, we probably agree that certain convictions, which may or may not be logically defined, cannot be resolved by rhetoric. </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Said perhaps with a bit more diplomacy that what I said but has the same meaning. []


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

larry buford,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Try thinking before you write? </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I thought I did.[]

Do you take exception to the definition:

"Nothingness" is the absence of time and space? It appears to resolve this chicken and egg boundry symantics problem.



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien